Federal labor board claims California's new law could disrupt HR compliance for private employers
A legal clash is underway as the National Labor Relations Board sues California over a new law that could reshape private sector labor relations in the state.
On October 15, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint in federal court against the State of California and its Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), challenging Assembly Bill 288. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2025, amends the California Labor Code to allow PERB to regulate private sector labor relations if certain federal protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) are repealed, narrowed, or their enforcement is enjoined in a case involving a specific worker.
The NLRB’s complaint alleges that AB 288 permits PERB to step in if the NLRB is deemed by California to have “expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction.” This could occur due to processing delays, lack of quorum, injunctions in particular cases, or a Supreme Court ruling affecting the tenure protections of NLRB members. In such cases, PERB could enforce collective bargaining agreements, resolve labor disputes, and certify bargaining representatives—functions that the NLRB says are reserved for itself under federal law.
According to the complaint, the NLRB argues that AB 288 creates a parallel regulatory system that undermines the federal labor policy Congress designed to be national in scope. The NLRB points out that the NLRA grants it exclusive authority to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce and that states are prohibited from regulating any activity the Act protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.
The complaint highlights several differences between AB 288 and the NLRA. For example, AB 288 allows PERB to issue civil monetary penalties of $1,000 against employers per labor-law violation and to order parties to submit to binding arbitration to complete a collective bargaining agreement after more than six months of negotiations. The complaint also notes that AB 288 does not proscribe unfair labor practices against unions, does not specifically permit employers to express non-coercive views about unionization, and does not protect the right to refrain from engaging in protected concerted activity.
For HR professionals, especially those managing labor relations in California, the case could mean new rules and oversight if AB 288 is enforced. The NLRB’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that Section 2 of AB 288 is preempted by the NLRA and an injunction to prevent California from enforcing the law, arguing that only the NLRB may cede or decline jurisdiction to state labor authorities.
As of now, the case is at the complaint stage and no final decision has been made. HR leaders should monitor the developments closely, as the outcome could affect how labor relations and compliance are managed in California and potentially influence broader discussions about the roles of state and federal labor authorities. All statements in this article are based on allegations in the complaint and not on findings of fact.
